Phillip Rakgwale v News24

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: 000656

Authors: Sikonathi Mantshantsha and Jeff Wicks

Headline: Ekurhuleni millions: Questionable operations of shadowy company involved in toilet scandal

Publication Date: 16 April 2026

Date lodged: 28 May 2026

Link to story: https://www.news24.com/investigations/ekurhuleni-millions-questionable-operations-of-shadowy-company-involved-in-toilet-scandal-20260415-1090

Particulars

1. This finding is based on correspondence by Phillip Rakgwale, the Group Chief Audit Executive of the City of Ekurhuleni, and on those of the investigative journalists Sikonathi Mantshantsha and Jeff Wicks, as well as on those of George Claassen, public editor of News24.
2. The initial complaint was about three articles. Our Public Advocate correctly declined to accept the first two, as they had been published some seven months ago – which was much too late (Clause 1.3 of our Complaint Procedures allows for complaints to be lodged within twenty working days after the date of publication).
3. I am therefore not taking comments about those articles into consideration.

The article

4. The journalists report that the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality paid more than R100 million to Theuwedi Trading Enterprise (TTE), calling the latter a “shadowy Limpopo company”, for contracts involving chemical toilets to serve informal settlements.
5. TTE “apparently” did not meet some stringent tender requirements. For example, it refused to divulge where its business operates from – “a key requirement of the lucrative three-year chemical toilets deal”. Suppliers had to maintain offices within Ekurhuleni.
6. The article reveals that TTE has a registered office in Tzaneen – more than 400 km from Ekurhuleni.
7. Nakampe Moliwa, TEE’s sole director, reportedly ignored several phone calls and messages to his mobile phone. However, his lawyers (Grundlingh & Associates) replied that TTE “has permanent operational offices and staff based in Midrand and Edenvale” – which lies within the borders of the Ekurhuleni municipality.
8. The journalists conclude, “Both Theuweni and the municipality’s reluctance to reveal the location of the facilities in Ekurhuleni raises serious questions about whether the company is providing any of the services the municipality is paying for.”
9. Ekurhuleni’s chief auditor, Mpho Mafole, was reportedly assassinated three days after having filed a probity audit report “raising several glaring irregularities on the municipality’s part in the choice of the companies awarded”. Also: “Mafole’s concerns about probity of the contract in general … died with him.”
10. Rakgwale is then mentioned (for the first time). The relevant text reads, “… Rakgwale immediately altered and sanitised the report’s findings, endorsing the probity of the three-year tender to station portable toilets across the metro municipality’s townships”.
11. He is then quoted as notifying top officials as follows: “We tested the 15 recommended bidders for award based on the evaluation criteria that was included in the bid document and did not identify any non-compliance issues… We are therefore in agreement with the Bid Evaluation Committee’s (BEC’s) recommendation to the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) on the recommended bidders.”

Background, as provided by Rakgwale

12. The Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO), Kagiso Lerutla, initially directed a probity audit covering both winning and losing bidders. The audit was conducted by Senior Internal Auditor Kagiso Motsi and Internal Auditors Mack Moshokwa and Itumeleng Mamatela.
13. On or about 26 June 2025, Mafole provided Rakgwale with a preliminary report. The next day, a follow-up meeting was held involving finance management, Rakgwale, Lerutla and Mafole to discuss the preliminary findings and provide feedback, which formed part of the audit process.
14. The preliminary report identified concerns that certain bidders may have been unfairly disqualified, creating a potential risk of legal action against the City. As a result, management decided that the probity audit should focus only on the winning bidders, while any allegations of document tampering by unsuccessful bidders would require a separate forensic investigation.
15. The subsequent probity audit of the winning bidders found no irregularities, and the final report confirmed that the selection process for the successful bidders was free from irregularities. The final report was emailed to the GCFO on 28 June 2025.
16. Rakgwale submits, “The preliminary report noted irregularities in disqualifying bidders, while the final probity audit found no issues with selecting winners. Each report addresses a different context: the former concerns both selected and disqualified bidders, the latter focuses on winning bidders only, disqualified bidders are excluded.”

The complaint; News24’s response

In general

17. In general, Rakgwale complains that allegations that he altered and sanitised a probity audit report were false, unverified, and disproven by documentary evidence and findings by Southern African Institute of Government Auditors (SAIGA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in South Africa (ACFE SA), and the City of Ekurhuleni Audit Committee.

18.  News24 denies that the article is in breach of any part of the Press Code. It states, “The alleged documentary so-called evidence and alleged findings by SAIGA, ACFE SA, and the Ekurhuleni Audit Committee are all irrelevant to the case under consideration. None of them are/were party to this dispute.”

naccurate, untruthful, unfair

19. Rakgwale complains that the article falsely states or implies that he altered, sanitised, or manipulated an internal audit report.

20.  News24 disagrees, as the draft audit report: a.       examined four unsuccessful bidders and found that bid evaluations were inconsistent, creating risks of irregular expenditure and potential legal challenges from losing bidders; and b.       identified concerns about a Bid Pre-Evaluation Committee that participated in the process despite not being recognised in the City of Ekurhuleni’s Supply Chain Management Policy, recommending that the policy be amended to formally include it. 21.  News24 contends that Rakgwale misrepresented the audit’s scope of work in a letter dated 27 June 2025 by claiming the team could not assess the 208 disqualified bids because they fell outside the audit scope. “This is one instance of him [Rakgwale] sanitizing the probit audit findings.” 22.  In this letter, Rakgwale also reduces the probity audit team’s work to only the 15 winning bidders and states the team “did not identify any non-compliance issues” and argues that the probity audit is “therefore in agreement” with the recommendation. 23.  “In Mr Rakgwale’s sanitised letter of 27 June 2025, nowhere is the finding that the bid committees unfairly disqualified some of the bids and that the audit team was unhappy with the process followed, including the fact that a non-statutory Bid Pre-Evaluation Committee took part in the exercise. Nowhere in this letter is any misgiving about the procurement process expressed, as did Mafole’s team to him in its draft audit report.” 24.  News24 further notes that Rakgwale has previously stated, in a letter dated 20 June 2025, that the audit would review both winning and disqualified bids to assess the fairness of the evaluation process.

Verification, right of reply

25. Rakgwale complains that News24 failed to:

a. verify whether the two reports were in fact different documents and to verify the claim that alterations occurred; and

b. give him an opportunity to respond to allegations of serious professional misconduct. Had they contacted him, he submits, he would have explained that he had made no changes to the report and that the documents were “different report types”.

26.  News24 replies that it has relied on one version of the draft audit report – the only one that was in its possession. “The additional audit report that Mr Rakgwale is introducing in this complaint is irrelevant to the already published articles. We verified and satisfied ourselves this was an authentic document from the municipality, and, on 20 October 2025, we sent an enquiry seeking comment from the Ekurhuleni municipality’s spokesman enquiring about this audit report.” 27.  Even though a spokesman speaks for the whole municipality, including Rakgwale, News24 says it specifically requested his comment in the correspondence. Noteworthy, he also was copied in the email. 28.  In addition, Rakgwale remained copied in further correspondence. The City responded that it would not comment on the matter which means, News24 argues, that the City “decided to not dispute any of our reporting in this matter”. 29.  The only reference to Rakgwale merely repeated the same allegations, for which News24 asked about and to which Rakgwale had declined to provide such comment. “It is therefore untrue that News24 failed to seek comment from Rakgwale or from the municipality, as the email shows.”

Misleading – confusing two different reports

30. Rakgwale complains that the article misleads the public by:

a. confusing two different reports as if they were one (SAIGA found the Internal Audit Report and an Internal Audit Memorandum served – which confirmed that News24 had misinterpreted the documentation in which he was officially cleared of all allegations);

b. distorting routine audit processes into claims of misconduct; and

c. misinterpreting version differences as “sanitization”.

31.  News24 replies that it only ever referred to one audit report in its articles. “There is no possibility of us having confused two reports, therefore,” its argument goes. 32.  It adds that the journalists were not aware of any “different versions” of the audit report. “We only had one version and worked with that version. We also clearly stated that the sanitization and misrepresentation of the findings was contained in Mr Rakgwale’s letter, not in any version’ of an audit report.” 33.  Claassen submits that any work that SAIGA may have subsequently produced, and any opinion/finding thereon, is irrelevant to this complaint. “We submit that SAIGA had no authority to make a finding on News24’s reporting. Such finding, if any was made at all, is therefore null and void. No weight should be accorded to it.” 34.  News24 concludes that SAIGA is a non-profit organisation of auditors, whose president is Rakgwale himself – at the very time that SAIGA allegedly made a finding on its reportage.

Harm caused

35. Rakgwale complains that the article has caused harm to his reputation, leading to emotional strain and professional humiliation.
36. It also created the false impression about how municipal audits are conducted and that investigations may be launched unnecessarily – which led to the loss of public trust in internal audits and municipal governance.

37.  News24 denies this, saying that Rakgwale himself is responsible for the harm caused to his dignity and reputation and that it has merely acted in the public interest.

Relief sought

38. Rakgwale asks this office to:

a. find that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 3.1 and 3.3 of the Press Code;

b. order a prominent public apology and retraction;

c. require News24 to issue a corrective statement acknowledging the falsity of the allegations; and

d. impose any additional sanction to restore fairness and to prevent similar future breaches.

Rejoinder

39. Rakgwale replies that News24 fails to understand why the final probity report provided to the GCFO excluded the losing bidders and only featured the winning ones. As stated in the complaint, management (including Mafole) decided to focus the probity audit solely on the winning bidders due to concerns regarding the document integrity of the losing bidders.
40. This decision arose because the GCFO raised concerns that the losing bidders’ documents appeared to have been tampered with.
41. Consequently, management decided that a separate forensic investigation would be conducted into the losing bidders’ documents.
42. Rakgwale says he never disputed the preliminary findings made by Mafole’s team. “I openly noted that the team initially identified several bidders who may have been unfairly disqualified. However, due to suspected tampering with the losing bidders’ documents, it was mutually agreed to exclude them from the scope of the final probity report.”
43. He adds that a probity report does not include forensic investigations; it is merely an objective review of whether internal procurement policies were followed. “Consequently, when document tampering was suspected, a separate forensic investigation had to follow.”
44. He notes that News24 admits to publishing the story based on the draft audit report and argues, “Publishing such serious allegations based entirely on an unfinalized document is highly reckless. By definition, a draft report is a work in progress containing preliminary ideas that remain highly subject to change based on feedback… a draft carries no official authority or legal weight until it is finalised and signed. Consequently, it serves strictly as an internal collaborative tool for review and correction, not as a verified source for public reporting. “
45. Rakgwale adds that the municipality did not respond to questions as an investigation was underway. “News24 should, at the very least, have respected the sensitive nature of this matter. Furthermore, they should have reached out to the police to confirm the status of the pending investigation before publishing.”
46. He concludes that Mantshantsha has his mobile number. “What prevented him from reaching out to me on the direct number like he had been doing?” he asks.

Analysis

Inaccurate, untruthful, unfair

47. The relevant parts of the article in dispute are documented under Point 10 and 11 above.
48. The article is based on an internal audit report, chaired by Mafole, coded 13COR2425, and dated 26 June 2025.
49. The nub of the complaint is that the article falsely states that Rakgwale “altered and sanitised” this report.

Mafole’s report, released on 26 June 2025

Prior to Mafole’s report

50. On 20 June 2025, Rakgwale writes to the GCFO and states, as part of the Audit Approach and Scope that the audit team would review the bid documents from both the winning and disqualified bids to determine whether fair evaluation processes were followed.

What Mafole’s report says regarding unsuccessful bidders

51. Under Point 9.1 of Mafole’s report, four companies are identified that “did comply with the mandatory requirements stated in the bid document but were unfairly disqualified by management at the BEC stage”.
52. Point 9.2 of the same report states that the Bid Pre-evaluation Committee “was not established properly”. It is recommended that management amend the SCM Policy to include this committee for its work to be regular.
53. It concludes, under Point 11, that the bidding process was only partially satisfactory: “Due to significant incidents that need to be corrected, the system of internal control can only be partly relied upon to provide assurance that objectives will be met. These incidents may likely expose the organisation to significant risks.”
54. Underneath this conclusion, the report labels the fact that the audit objectives were partially satisfactory, as a “high risk”; in instances where the objectives were unsatisfactory, it is described as “critical”.
55. Later on in the report, problems with the above-mentioned are detailed. It states, “The evaluation of bids was not fair and consistent, as the BEC officials did not apply proper due diligence when examining/evaluating bid proposals for compliance with the evaluation criteria/specifications.”
56. The report foresees possible legal challenges by the losing bidders “if they believe that they were unfairly evaluated or that the tender was irregularly awarded, resulting in delays or disruptions in service delivery”.
57. The is the report’s recommendation regarding the above: “Management should ensure that all bids received are evaluated in accordance with the minimum requirements of the issued bid document. Management should review the population and ensure that the necessary adjustments are made from the BEC stage to avoid the possible incurrence of irregular expenditure. Bids should be adjudicated by the BAC to ensure disqualifications are justified and that valid and accountable reasons/motivations were furnished for passing over of bids and that the scoring has been fair, consistent and correctly calculated and applied.”

The report released by Rakgwale on 27 June 2025

58. The next day, on 27 June 2025, Rakgwale reports to the GCFO by way of a memorandum. He inter alia says, “Due to insufficient time, we are unable to provide assurance on the 208 disqualified bids as this was not part of our scope of work.”
59. It may be true that the team had insufficient time to review all the 208 unsuccessful bids, as Rakgwale says, but it did deal with four of them – and in quite some detail. If it was “not part of our scope of work”, as Rakgwale says, then why did the team investigate the four companies as mentioned under Point 51 above?
60. I also note that Rakgwale neglects to report in his letter to the GCFO the team’s finding that the bid committees unfairly disqualified some of the bids and that the audit team was not satisfied with the process followed. In fact, it does not mention any of the details that I have documented under Points 51 – 57 above.
61. Clearly, the team did not confine its work to the 15 winning bidders only, as claimed by Rakgwale.

Conclusion: Inaccurate, untruthful, unfair

The status of the report

62. Firstly, the status of this document is in question, at least, to my mind – and not without reason.
63. The word “DRAFT” is published diagonally on all the pages.
64. Rakgwale repeatedly calls this document a “preliminary” report. In his rejoinder, under Point 44 (above), he labels the report as “unfinalized”, saying it was “a work in progress” which contains “preliminary ideas that remain highly subject to change based on feedback”. He adds that a draft carries no official authority or legal weight until it is finalised and signed.
65. News24 notably also says it based its reportage on a “draft audit report”, as documented under Point 26 above.
66. The problem, though, is that the following words are published on top of each of the more than twenty pages: “Final Internal Audit Report: Probity Audit Supply Chain Management” (my emphasis). Moreover, the first sentence of the report reads, “We have the pleasure of submitting our final report on the agreed-upon internal audit work performed in the area” (again my emphasis).
67. While it is not for this office to decide which is which, I nevertheless need to flag some concerns at this stage regarding both parties to this complaint:

a. By News24’s own admission, it based its article on a draft report – indeed, as Rakgwale says, that is risky. And, let me add, irresponsible – a draft report is, by definition, not final; and

b. Rakgwale also argues that the report was only a draft – but then he conveniently ignores the wordings as mentioned under Point 66 above.

   68. I notice that, nowhere in the article, is Mafole’s report described as a draft – it consistently calls it a “probity audit report”. Even if I consider the wording in the report itself (see Point 66 above), the fact remains that News24, in its reply to the complaint, admits that the journalists relied on a draft report (as documented under Point 26 above).

69. That fact should have been stated in the article.

The sentence in question

70. I can now decide on the central question which is if News24 was justified in stating that “Rakgwale immediately altered and sanitised” Mafole’s report.
71. The answer to this question is “yes” and “no”.
72. YES: Rakgwale’s memorandum did not report what I have documented under Points 51 – 61.
73. Let me summarise the salient issues, even if I am repeating myself. The memorandum, also called the “second report”, inter alia omitted to state that:

a. there were significant flaws in the tender evaluation process – it found that four companies that met all mandatory bid requirements were unfairly disqualified during the Bid Evaluation Committee stage;

b. the bidding process was only partially satisfactory, meaning that identified shortcomings could expose the City to significant risks – which was classified as a high risk finding;

c. bid evaluations were neither fair nor consistent because BEC officials failed to exercise proper due diligence when assessing compliance with tender requirements;

d. the statement that the audit team could not provide assurance on the 208 disqualified bids because reviewing them was allegedly outside the scope of the audit is inconsistent with the team’s detailed examination of four disqualified bidders;

e. the audit findings that some bids had been unfairly disqualified and that the evaluation process was unsatisfactory. As a result, there was a clear discrepancy between the detailed findings in the audit report and Rakgwale’s later representation of the scope and outcomes of the audit; and

f. the Bid Pre-evaluation Committee had not been properly established and had recommended that the SCM Policy be amended to formally provide for this committee.

74. So here is my question: How can all these issues not be described as “altering” and “sanitising” the audit report?

75. NO: The sentence in question portrays Rakgwale as the only person who altered and sanitised the report. That is not true, because:

a. the decision was taken by management;

b.  Mafole himself was party to that decision, as is evidenced by an email from him, dated June 29; and

c. he was quoted as saying that “we (plural)” had tested the 15 recommended bidders, which indicated that he did not take this decision on his own.

Confusing two different reports

76. Rakgwale complains that the article misleads the public by confusing two different reports (pertaining to the one released on June 26 and the memorandum on June 27 respectively) as if they were one.
77. He also points out that he was officially cleared of all allegations.
78. Considering News24’s defence on this issue, as documented under Points 26 – 29 above, I believe there is some misunderstanding or confusion on its part regarding this matter. The memorandum which was issued on June 27 is the second report to which Rakgwale refers. As this initially confused me as well, I cleared it out with him.
79. Given this fact, I do not believe that the article has “confused” the two texts.
80. I also do not believe the fact that Rakgwale was officially cleared of all allegations has any bearing on the article in dispute.

Right of reply

81. Rakgwale complains that News24 failed to give him an opportunity to respond to allegations of serious professional misconduct; News24 says it contacted him directly as well as via the municipality’s spokesman. “Through the municipality’s spokesman, he declined to comment. And failed to do what he now says he would have done,” it argues.
82. On 20 October 2025, the journalist, Mantshantsha, asked the municipality several questions regarding this matter, with a cc to Rakgwale.
83. Phakamile Mbengashe, Head of Department: Communications, Marketing and Tourism, responded seven minutes later that the City of Ekurhuleni “will provide a formal response within the stipulated deadline”.
84. In later correspondence (which is undated), the City responds that “the matter in question is subject to a broader police investigation, which is currently underway. In light of this, the City is constrained from providing detailed comment at this stage, as doing so may inadvertently compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigation and any associated legal processes. The City will refrain from engaging publicly on the substantive details until the investigation is concluded and the competent authorities have finalised their processes.”
85. This is a fair response.
86. I have asked Rakgwale if the City had responded to News24 after the investigation was completed – and if so, to please send me the evidence. He responded, “The investigation is still ongoing together with SAPS.”
87. This means one thing and one thing only – News24 was not obliged to approach the City again for comment. It could not be expected to again ask for comment, as the City had indicated that it would not respond to questions while the investigation was ongoing.

Harm caused

88. Rakgwale complains that the article has harmed his reputation, leading to emotional strain and professional humiliation.
89. News24 counters that Rakgwale himself is responsible for the harm caused to his dignity and reputation and that it has merely acted in the public interest.
90. The preamble to the Press Code states that the media should avoid causing “unnecessary” harm.
91. In Decoding the Code – sentence by sentence, I wrote the following on this matter: “This is the heart of the heart of media ethics, and also of the Code. The media are in the business of harming people. For example, if a public official is found to be corrupt, it is in the public interest to reveal this, inter alia because that person is paid with public money and is therefore accountable to all and sundry. The publication of the story is bound to harm this individual, but that would be to the greater good of society. In such a case the official deserves to be exposed. In fact, corrupt people harm themselves. The media merely report the corruption and are therefore only a secondary instrument in this process.”
92. Therefore, the issue here is if the statement in dispute has caused Rakgwale unnecessary harm. I do believe so – not with regards to the use of the words “altered” and ”sanitised”, but because he was singled out as acting on his own.

Finding

93. News24 should have, but did not, publish that the report on which it based its reportage was (by its own admission) a draft. This is in breach of Section 1.2 of the Press Code that reads: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … material omissions …”
94. The article singles Rakgwale out as the only one responsible for altering and sanitising Mafole’s report, while the decision was not taken by him alone. This is in breach of:

a. Section 1.1 of the Code that states, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and

b. Section 3.3 of the Code that stipulates, “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…” – again, not because he was not involved in “altering” and “sanitising” the audit report, but because he was portrayed as having been acting on his own.

95.The complaints about the following matters are dismissed:

a. The use of the words “altered” and “sanitised”;

b. Confusing the two reports; and

c. Not asking for a right of reply.

Sanction

96. News24 is:

a. directed to apologise to Rakgwale for singling him out as the only person who was responsible for altering and sanitising the report – and for, in this process, causing him some unnecessary harm; and

b. reprimanded for not referring to the document on which it based its article as a draft report.

97. The above should:

• • be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
  • be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the article was published;
  • be published with the apology in the introductory sentence and with a headline including the words “apology” and “Rakgwale”;
  • be published on all platforms where the article is published;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;
  • be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
  • be approved by me.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

25 June 2026